One of the most remarkable facts to emerge from the recent presidential
election is that 72 percent of the Hispanic vote went to Mr. Obama.
This is remarkable for at least two reasons. First of all, back in 2004
no less than nearly half (44 percent) of the Hispanic vote went to
George W. Bush. Why the substantial decline? Secondly, Hispanics
by and large are pro-life, anti-abortion, typically with families
larger than those to be found in the Caucasian population. In religion
they are predominantly Roman Catholic. And they are a major source of
recruitment for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Why, then, would they
vote so overwhelmingly to give a second term of office to a president
whose program is a threat to their foundational values - a president
who is a fanatical zealot for abortion without restriction, abortion
funded both at home and abroad by tax-payers' dollars; a president
whose HealthCare mandate will impose ruinous fines, starting next
August the first, on Catholic institutions that refuse to subsidize
through their employees' insurance policies what the Church condemns as
evil, thus forcing Catholic institutions, unless the courts intervene,
either to go out of business or to cease to be Catholic; a president
moreover who seems hell-bent in his determination to reduce our armed
forces to a ghost of what they used to be and what they need to be in
an increasingly dangerous world. Why would Hispanics rally to his
cause?

A plausible answer is the
prevailing perception among Hispanics that today's Republican Party
holds them in contempt, whereas Mr. Obama, since the campaign of
2008, has been wooing them non-stop. Such at least is the assessment
reached by the editors of the Wall
Street Journal, set forth in the edition of November fourteenth
. May I share their appraisal with you here.

*
*
*
* *

Immigrants and the GOP The
Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2012 Editorial

The GOP's Presidential election
defeat is opening up a debate in the party, with more than a few
voices saying they are willing to rethink their views on immigration.
This is good news, which means it's also a good moment to address some
of the frequent claims from the anti-immigration right that SIMPLY
AREN'T TRUE, especially about HISPANICS.

One myth is that Latino
voters simply aren't worth pursuing because they're automatic
Democrats. Yet Ronald Reagan was so eager to welcome Latinos to the GOP
that he described them as "Republicans who don't know it yet."

Recall that between 1996 and
2004 the GOP doubled its percentage of the Hispanic vote to more than
40%, culminating in the re-election of George W. Bush, who won Colorado, Iowa New
Mexico and Nevada-states with fast growing Hispanic populations that
Mitt Romney lost. The notion that Hispanics are "natural"
Democrats and not swing voters is belied by this history.

Equally specious is the argument
that Latino immigrants come here, often illegally, to "steal" jobs or
to go on the dole. If illegal aliens are displacing natives in the
labor force, why was there more immigration and less unemployment under
President Bush? And if foreign nationals are primarily
attracted to our welfare state how to explain the fact that low-income IMMIGRANTS are LESS likely to be
receiving public benefits than low-income natives?

Illegal aliens aren't eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security
and other federal entitlements. But even
those low-income immigrants who ARE eligible for public assistance sign
up at LOWER rates than their native counterparts. According to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers food stamps, non citizens who qualify are significantly
LESS likely than citizens to participate.

Over the past decade, the states
experiencing the fastest immigrant population growth have not
been traditional gateways like New York and California. Latino newcomers have been flocking to
Arkansas, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska
and the Carolinas-states that are
among the STINGIEST for PUBLIC benefits.

Between 2000 and 2005, the Hispanic population in Arkansas grew by 48%,
more than any other state. Social
welfare spending in Arkansas is among the LOWEST in the country, making
it an off destination for someone in search of a hand-out. The
early and mid-2000s were a period of strong economic growth in the
state and much of the Southeast, and the immigrants were looking for JOBS.

Polls regularly show that immigration is NOT a priority for Hispanic voters,
but HOW BORDER POLICY IS DISCUSSED
STILL MATTERS AS A THRESHOLD AND SYMBOLIC ISSUE. When Republican
Presidential candidates are preoccupied with putting up an
electrified fence along the Rio Grande and blaming Latinos (wrongly) for driving up
crime, unemployment and health-care costs, we are a long way
from Ronald Reagan's welcoming GOP.

Republican restrictionists might also keep in mind that MORE than Latinos are listening to the
harsh rhetoric on immigration.ASIAN
support for the GOP FELL
dramatically in the 1990s after Republican Pete Wilson pushed Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that
denied illegal immigrants and their children access to education and
health care and was primarily aimed at Mexicans.

Asians, the fastest growing
racial or ethnic group between 2000 and 2010, broke for Mr. Obama this
year, 73% to 26%, though only 41% of Asian-Americans identify as
Democrats....

One irony is that Republicans obsessed with illegal immigration haven't
noticed that THE PROBLEM IS GOING AWAY,
thanks in part to a more secure border but mostly due to slower
economic growth. Illegal immigration
to the U.S. peaked in 2000, under President Clinton. It was down by
more than a third on the day President Obama took office, and NET
migration from Mexico today is estimated to be zero. Between 2005 and
2010 as many Mexicans LEFT the U.S. as arrived, according to the Pew
Hispanic Center.

Hispanic growth in the U.S. is
being driven not by newcomers but by birthrates among those already
here. Talk-show hosts could declare the borders closed today to
all Mexicans, South Koreans, Indians, and any other foreigner, and the
voting share of these ethnic groups would increase for decades. Short of deportation, or "self-deportation"
as Mr. Romney put it, the minority share of the electorate is going to
rise inexorably.

The larger issue is about VALUES
AND ECONOMICS. With rare historical exceptions like anti-Chinese
nativism of the late 1980s, belief in
the immigrant story of aspiration and the U.S. as a land of opportunity
have been CORE American values. A party that rejects those
beliefs distances itself from American exceptionalism, if we can borrow
a word popular in conservative circles.

As for the economics, immigration is
one reason the U.S. has BETTER prospects than the AGING entitlement
states of Europe and Japan. America NEEDS immigrants with varying
degrees of skill and income for economic GROWTH, and the best way to know how
much is to let labor markets determine the flow through FLEXIBLE VISA PROGRAMS.

U. S. immigration policy should focus on REGULATING the flow NOT ENDING IT, and that means EXPANDING LEGAL WAYS TO COME, which
is the most effective and human way to reduce illegal entries.....
[Emphasis added].